↓ Skip to main content

Computational Protein Design Quantifies Structural Constraints on Amino Acid Covariation

Overview of attention for article published in PLoS Computational Biology, November 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (73rd percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
8 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
38 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
citeulike
6 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Computational Protein Design Quantifies Structural Constraints on Amino Acid Covariation
Published in
PLoS Computational Biology, November 2013
DOI 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003313
Pubmed ID
Authors

Noah Ollikainen, Tanja Kortemme

Abstract

Amino acid covariation, where the identities of amino acids at different sequence positions are correlated, is a hallmark of naturally occurring proteins. This covariation can arise from multiple factors, including selective pressures for maintaining protein structure, requirements imposed by a specific function, or from phylogenetic sampling bias. Here we employed flexible backbone computational protein design to quantify the extent to which protein structure has constrained amino acid covariation for 40 diverse protein domains. We find significant similarities between the amino acid covariation in alignments of natural protein sequences and sequences optimized for their structures by computational protein design methods. These results indicate that the structural constraints imposed by protein architecture play a dominant role in shaping amino acid covariation and that computational protein design methods can capture these effects. We also find that the similarity between natural and designed covariation is sensitive to the magnitude and mechanism of backbone flexibility used in computational protein design. Our results thus highlight the necessity of including backbone flexibility to correctly model precise details of correlated amino acid changes and give insights into the pressures underlying these correlations.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 8 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 7 6%
Germany 2 2%
France 1 <1%
Korea, Republic of 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Taiwan 1 <1%
Unknown 98 87%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 38 34%
Student > Ph. D. Student 31 27%
Student > Master 12 11%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 4%
Other 12 11%
Unknown 5 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 60 53%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 24 21%
Chemistry 14 12%
Engineering 2 2%
Physics and Astronomy 2 2%
Other 5 4%
Unknown 6 5%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 November 2013.
All research outputs
#6,997,643
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from PLoS Computational Biology
#4,735
of 8,960 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#59,706
of 224,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLoS Computational Biology
#71
of 146 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,960 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.4. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 224,525 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 146 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.